"The Dotcoms complain that non-disclosure impedes their ability to pursue their claim and breaches their rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990," the decision said.
"In particular, they submit that the measure of damages to which they are entitled will depend on the extent and nature of the unlawful intrusion into their private lives and the raw communications are needed to establish this."
The Dotcom team said that any national security issues shouldn't stop the information being released, because information on the sources and methods of intelligence-gathering were already public knowledge.
But lawyers for the GCSB argued that releasing the material could prejudice the security of New Zealand, and the confidence of other countries in entrusting sensitive information to New Zealand.
A main reason for Justice Gilbert's decision is a 2013 Court of Appeal verdict that ruled the GCSB didn't have to release the raw communications. Justice Gilbert said that meant he couldn't relitigate the issue.
Even if it wasn't for the Court of Appeal verdict, Justice Gilbert said national security issues outweighed public interest in the raw communications.
"A number of the redactions in the discovered documents are to protect the identity or contact details of personnel who were involved in or associated with the operation or copied into email communications concerning it," Justice Gilbert said in the decision.
"It is hard to see how any of this information could be relevant to the relief that should be granted in this proceeding.
"The public interest in disclosure is modest and clearly outweighed by the public interest in withholding disclosure."
Kim Dotcom isn't happy with the decision, and said he'd take it to the Court of Appeal, "to shine some cleansing sunlight".
"After being caught [illegally intercepting communications] the GCSB has fought to keep what it did, and how, a secret from me and you, the New Zealand public.
"Worse, it seeks to hide behind 'national security' to keep the truth from us."
Dotcom alleged that the way this case was heard left his team at a disadvantage, with the GCSB's lawyers heard in closed court, and Dotcom's lawyers not allowed to be present for their evidence.
"When my lawyers were heard after that hearing, they had to make submissions as to why information they were not allowed to see, for reasons they were not allowed to know, should be disclosed.
"They were effectively shooting at a moving target, in the dark, with one hand tied behind their backs."
Dotcom said he would continue to fight the decision to make sure everyone was safe from unlawful surveillance, and to make sure those responsible were held accountable.
